And Hicks did not once mention he had lost the ball!

It's a terrible rule that I've been very critical of but let's face it, anyone saying there was conclusive proof that he missed it isn't being very honest. There was no replay that showed a gap between hand and ball and nothing to completely rule out the possibility of finger brushing ball. I'd say it was less likely that he did than he didn't, but the rules require conclusive proof. Those same rules apply to every team.

The only way it could have gone differently is if Hicks had discarded the rules and overturned the try without conclusive proof.

I could see his hand all the time and didn't see any part of it touch the ball though!
However, the problem is the system.
Thankfully it was irrelevant, the game was already over as a contest by then.

Well played Wigan, the first half performance was excellent.

The “No Try” V.R. decision is the perfect example of why they need to change that rule.

The commentary seemed a little “Sky Like” at times with Nobby taking on the Stevo role, especially at the end when he was adamant Campbell referred it upstairs as a “No Try” – No he didn’t!

The rule is a farce. Thankfully we've got one back by the looks of it tonight but it doesn't make up for the one that was given in the Grand Final.

It should be scrapped asap.

What did everyone think of the Sam Tomkins try?

I think he still looks a class above most others in SL.
Defensively he has improved during his time in the NRL.
How many tries and try assists is that in the few games he has been back?

The ref sent it up as a try so the VR doesn't need to see his hand on the ball. He needs to see clear separation, and if he cannot the rules state it remains a try. Lots of people - including the commentary - claimed there was proof he missed it but that simply wasn't true, no angle gave that view so the only way hicks could have overturned it was too throw out the rule book for a Wigan decision.

Wonderful. The greatest try ever scored by the best player in the world, ever. He's a God. Wigan are amazing.
Is that what you wanted to hear?

To be separation, there has to be contact in the first place!

However the rules state there has to be downward preasure but on the replays the only time his hand was making a downward movement the ball was actually rising, now admitidley it's been a few years since I passed my physics O'level, but I'm not sure it's possible to have downward preasure on an object if it's moving in the opposite direction

Sloppy tackle by Millington.

The problem is not the rule, the problem is that (as I have said several times before) we don't seem to have VRs with the right analytical skills to use the technology they have available.

The video system worked as well as it possibly can. The only way to make it better is to spend a billion pounds and have banks of super-slo-mo special cameras all around each try zone.

There is no rule that he needs to see clear separation. The rules are the rules, the only new caveat is he has to be sure, on what he sees, that the ref made the wrong call. Hicks knows the rules backwards, and the rule for scoring a try when the ball is on the ground is you have to apply downward pressure.

I think, personally, it is ridiculous, and frankly embarrassing, for anyone to take an "emperor's new clothes" angle and claim there is any doubt there was never any downward pressure. It was as clear as it can be that his hand went down the side of the ball.

The whole purpose of the rules is meant to bet hat we get the major decisions right. The fact that the game is made a laughing stock by that being awarded as a try is all the proof you need that there is something wrong.

The fact that pretty much every reasonable person with functional eyes is unanimous that it was never a try in a million years, based on seeing the same evidence that Hicks saw, is all the proof you need that the problem is the decision maker, not the VR system. Hicks over-thought it, and in trying to dot every "i" and cross every "t", failed to see the fundamental thing, that, er, actually, no way is that ever a try.

He got caught up in the same anal over-analysis of minutiae as did Silverwood, when he made a similarly appaling rick, by examining everything else, but forgetting to ask himself "yes, but did the ball actually get anywhere near the ground?".

There, as here, the problem was not with the evidence, which was excellent, it was with the judge.

The problem is definitely with the system, not the decision maker. Hicks had a very clear and narrow remit: prove Manfredi missed the ball. To do that he absolutely must see a clear gap between Manfredi's hand and the ball. The angles and quality of the replay simply do not show that. In the frames where Manfredi's had passes the ball it is possible - however unlikely - that his finger brushed the ball. In this situation all the rules require is that it be possible for Manfredi's hand to brush the ball. The problem then is the rules, not with Hicks.

If the on field decision was scrapped Hicks could use his own judgement and decide that on the balance of probabilities he probably didn't get downward pressure, but currently he is forced by the rules to take the action he did and not use the balance of probabilities. Better yet, if the rules were changed from "downward pressure" to "significant downward pressure" he could have disallowed that and many other controversial tries that seem to make the game look ridiculous.

Bear in mind, if the cameras were not at these games, the ref just checks with the "touchies" and makes his decision and surely, this is what lies behind the current VR rule.
If the cameras weren't there, or the game didn't use them, we would be going with the ref's call.
Most of the time, they get it right but, sometimes not.
(they do make some howlers though)

That's a fair point actually and I've never considered the fact that the on field decision brings televised games more in line with non-televised games (although I did think earlier in the thread when someone called for the VR to be scrapped because of this decision that they would still have ended up with a try being given as that's what the referee guessed). Still, it's a downward levelling off, rather than an upward one. We are making televised more like non-televised games by making them less accurate (by introducing a referee guess) rather than the other way around (which I accept we probably just don't have the resources for).

Surely it works both ways though? If the on-field ref hasn't seen the player ground the ball (how could he have when Manfredi probably didn't ground it), why did he go with a try on-field?

Having rewatched it I've changed my mind. On the first angle it looks pretty clear to me that as Manfredi's hand passes the ball the ball changes spin and direction. I'd have to say from that that he did touch it and that both ref and VR got it spot on. https://youtu.be/fAwgo_XlbHk

Having rewatched it I've changed my mind. On the first angle it looks pretty clear to me that as Manfredi's hand passes the ball the ball changes spin and direction. I'd have to say from that that he did touch it and that both ref and VR got it spot on. https://youtu.be/fAwgo_XlbHk

I'm confident he touched it having watched it quite a few times. The ball does deviate very very slightly as his hand goes past it, there is even a single frame where it appears Manfredi's little finger could be bent back brushing the ball.

There's no controlled downward pressure though, so we all know it shouldn't have been a try really - but... that's not the rules sadly.

I always thought it was to have 'downward pressure', surely the end of a little finger 'somewhere' on the ball cannot be acceptable as control. I thought he was nowhere near it. Far too much inconsistency as well, we have had them chalked off by the video ref after the ref gave an on field try with the Sky team being baffled as to why it was chalked off.

It isn't much use making comments if you don't know the rules. Missing the ball isn't needed - indeedit is likely he brushed the side of the ball as he tried to ground it. What he needs to be satisfied is that there was no downward pressure. I'm sorry, but anyone who clutches at straws claiming there may have been downward pressure is just being argumentative for the sake of it. There was no downward pressure and it is silly to say there may have been.



Indeed, but if the rules had wanted to include "brushing" the ball then they would add it. As it is, there has to be downward pressure.


Nonsense. Not in the actual Laws of the Game.


Not necessary. If any part of the hand makes any contact at all with the top surface of the ball whilst the ball is on the ground then that is downward pressure. We don't need "significant". We just need people to accept that sideways brushes can't be called downwrad pressure. We need to ask ourselves, when they wrote that definition, did they mean to include what Manfredi did? The answer is a resounding "Of course they fukken didn't!"

Listen, the only people saying Hicks was in the right are those arguing about some arcane view of the VR protocol, but NOBODY is saying they thought Manfredi scored a try having seen the replays. If your argument is, "I am pretty certain it wasn't a try, but Hicks was right to give it", then you are supporting a version of the rule that would bring the game into disrepute. The whole point of the VR is meant to be to above all get the decision right.

That we arrived at a plainly bad decision is bad enough. If you're saying the same should happen the next time, then I give up.

If he brushed the ball as his hand moved downwards then it's downward pressure, however small an amount. But honestly it doesn't matter now, don't let it keep you awake at 2am!

The difference is at a non televised game then there would be an in goal judge, he would have had the best view, and pretty sure it would have been disallowed, if there was in goal ref at that game even with video ref, pretty sure it would have gone up as no try.

Fact is everyone except the video ref thought it was no try, fortunately it not not effect the game.

As a Cas fan I have to agree with your interpretation, including your previous posts. As iniquitous as the decision was. I said to the tigress it was never a try but the VR would have to give it.